International Burn a Religious Text Day

Once again, books are being burned (for good reason this time) and people are killing other people and themselves over it. I give Islam a lot of stick on this blog, but any Muslims can rest assured that I would be equally scathing with any other group that was so violently touchy and intolerant.

There is a lot of bowing and scraping about the "desecration" of the books, but that is NOT against any law in North America to the best of my knowledge. The Bible pre-dates the Koran by a whole lot and is the basis for Islam (whether they'll admit it any more or not) and I can burn as many of those as I want and nobody makes a peep.

Oh, I'm sure you'll find a few Christian nutjobs who'd like to lynch me over it, but they'd be pooh-poohed as cranks. What do you do when there are hundreds of millions of nutjobs? Apparently you panic and kowtow:

Last year, when controversial Florida pastor Terry Jones presided over what he called a trial of the Quran and burned a copy, Afghans took to the streets by the thousands. In the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e Sharif, demonstrators stormed a U.N. office and killed 12 people. In Kandahar, three people were killed in one demonstration, and nine in another when police and stone-throwing demonstrators clashed.

American officials vociferously condemned the pastor's act.

"It was intolerant and it was extremely disrespectful and again, we condemn it in the strongest manner possible," said Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the U.S.-led international forces in Afghanistan at the time.

"...the strongest manner possible ." Think about that language. This equates burning a mass-produced book to the raping and killing children or other such universally abhorrent acts. I'm sure Director (then General) Petraeus would contest my equivalence here but there is no getting around what he said and what it means. And for Obama to call for "a fair and public trial", I'd like to know what law these American service people broke, even under military law that would call for a trial; they were burning the trash, and the books were in it for good reason.

So, to sum up:

• Burn a Koran, be threatened with arbitrary arrest and/or death at the hands of incensed Muslims the world over, or;
• Riot, burn and kill people about something which has nothing to do with you and you are "proud and noble".

If you want to live under a system where you're executed for this sort of thing, move to, well, any self-identified "Muslim" country. Under the law of MY land, I can have a big Koran/Bible/Torah/Bhagavad Gita/Kangyur BBQ in my backyard (local fire ordinances permitting) and there is nothing illegal about it. Of course, making a ranting Youtube video about it could land me in front of the Human Rights Tribunal, but that becomes a "hate speech" issue and don't get me going on that in a discussion of freedom of expression.

I feel badly for all of the decent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and anywhere else who are condemned to live with the REAL intolerance and bigotry which kills you if you step out of line. Let's haul in front of a Human Rights Tribunal all of the people who would kill me (or them) for saying what a lot of people think about bullshit religions instead of terrorising people into being Sharia compliant dhimmis. If you don't know what those last two terms mean, do yourself a favour and research them, especially "Dhimmitude", 'cause that's where Obama, Petraeus and General John Allen have already placed us.

The Maple Leaf for Now

First off, all the best to you in the year that Mayans decided to stop making calendars; considering where that civilization is these days I'd say they built more than enough redundancy into them. I can never guarantee we won't have a cataclysm, but I'll put my money (and everything else!) on the fact that I'll still be around this time a year from now.
 

AotF starts the year starts with more local musings on civilization. Canada is 40+ years down the history-abnegating path of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, and we finally have a government which is trying to reclaim the common past of this country.
 

Political observers of all stripes believe the revival of interest in Canada's colonial history is part of a broader Conservative effort to rekindle patriotism and reshape Canada's culture more in the government's own image.

Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper who now teaches at the University of Calgary, said that vision took root many years ago -- and originated at the top.

"Stephen once said to me that a conservative party in any country ought to be party of patriotism," Flanagan said in an email. "He is now creating a conservative version of Canadian patriotism."

Harper's brand of national pride relies heavily on elements common to many right-wing political movements, including unwavering support for the military and a push to lay claim to the country's far-flung northern regions, Flanagan said.

 

The thing that gets the most press of course is the attention to the formalities of our association with the Crown. There seem to be a lot of people who can't tell the difference between a Republic (what the USA started off as) and a Constitutional Monarchy, our form of government. The Queen is our Head of State, not the Prime Minister, and as long as that relationship is maintained protocol must be observed.
 

Where I weigh in on this is the connection it provides Canadians with a common heritage. Quebec, although intimately wound up in Canada’s common colonial past will always be bent out of shape about that fact that a German king took over from their French one. La Belle Provence has never accepted that they were but a Great Power pawn, so getting them on board with the monarchy is not going to happen.
 

Canada was referred to as "two solitudes" but I'd like to think we can reduce that to one: Nationalist Quebecois  who are already a vanishing political force. The rest of us, whatever our extraction, can adopt Canada with an identifiable history. Even if it wasn't your ancestors directly, you should be able to adopt the broad sweep of Canada's history, for example:
 

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane,

Our brave fathers, side by side,

For freedom, homes and loved ones dear,

Firmly stood and nobly died;

And those dear rights which they maintained,

We swear to yield them never!

Our watchword evermore shall be

"The Maple Leaf forever!"
 

The whole of "The Maple Leaf Forever" is dated, sure, but there need to be things that a culture can identify as its' own or it doesn't exist. The latter works for "progressives" for whom everything that might set someone apart from anyone else is bad, but even a democracy requires an identity if people are going to be inspired to work for it.
 

Defending our territory is foremost in the duties of the Federal government, so solidifying our hold on the Arctic should not be at all controversial, merely overdue. Acknowledging the constitutional advantages of having a hereditary Head of State with (very) limited but absolute powers to dissolve government shows the robustness of our Democracy to withstand tyranny and demagoguery.
 

I am not a Monarchist for the sake of the Royal Family (Charles as King, really?) but the Canada that most people can agree that they want to live in would not be secure as a Republic. The separation of taxation power from the hereditary/appointed Crown which has the power to approve and dissolve government provides a simple "check and balance" on the prerogatives of both elements. Supporting that should not only be a "conservative" position.
 

Anyway, I pulled back in to start off the New Year, but I'm sure there will be wide-ranging wackiness for me to comment on before long. As I do occasionally, I'll appeal to any of you who read this to give me some sign with comments or even the quick "tick in the box" impressions I've provided for your convenience. No names, no pack drill, but I am curious to know a bit about who is looking at this.

Pick a Flashpoint, any Flashpoint...

The one prediction I'll make for 2012 is that it probably won't start out boring. Taking the Mediterranean/Middle East/South Asia alone, there is unrest and tension from the Pillars of Hercules to North Korea. Algeria is a barely contained powder keg, Libya is a disaster waiting for extremists to take over, and Islamists are posed to or have taken power in Tunisia and Egypt. That's just North Africa.

Moving into the Med, the Turks are firing into the sea adjacent to Cypriot/Israeli gas developments and one of their sabre waving exercises will likely result in an armed confrontation with Israel unless they back off. That gets interesting, as Turkey is still a NATO country,and Article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter would compel Canada and most of Europe as well as the USA to come to Turkey's aid. In practice I don't see that happening, but the Israelis have too much at stake to let the Turks push them around, so Turkey either backs away or there's a regional war.

NATO's involvement in Afghanistan is winding down, and Pakistan is moving firmly into the "enemy" camp as it destabilizes (further), so lots of potential for mayhem. I skipped Iran, but moving back to them, a lot of people are trying to figure out what game they're trying to play right now. The talk about closing the straits of Hormuz is madness and must be for domestic consumption. Even at that it's messed up, as the Iranians know damned well that even the fading US could hand them their ass in less than a day, leave off what the Gulf Sates and Israel would do to them.

Smashing Iranian military power would not be difficult, and since no-one's even thinking of invading the place I see no upside to them playing tough. Perhaps they got overly bold after bringing in that US drone, in which case some serious questions need to be asked about who is in charge of what in Iran these days. Flaunting (distant) pictures of a US carrier group is not even close to being able to seriously threaten it, so bad decisions abound in Tehran these days.

So, get your money and place your bets. I haven't even mentioned the looming holy war in Nigeria, but think of it as a cross between the Lebanese Civil War with the mess that was/is Iraq, with a population of 160M people. To be more local, any Sierra Leone/Liberia etc. machete-waving necklacing atrocity-fest on a massive scale. Oh yeah, and Sudan is bombing South Sudan already...

Lots to look forward to, and I've only hit the most obvious stuff. Hopefully your New Year doesn't involve any of these places, but in any event, the best of luck.

Tyrant Turnover and year-end review

As the end of 2011 rapidly approaches, I can't say it's been a dull year geopolitically. Barring some (by no means impossible) last-minute additions, the following will serve as a list of things that got my attention for any length of time. In no particular order:

• the Arab Spring. It won't quite be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", but I can't say that things are likely to improve as much as was hoped in the first blush of protests. Syria is still a running sore and Egypt and the rest which have forced a change (however incremental) are looking pretty iffy.
• Related, Libya. Gaddafi is no loss to the world, but it's worth noting that he kept the Islamists down and was trying pretty hard (post Iraqi Freedom) to make nice with the west. Indications of Al Quada in the militias should give some pause for thought amidst the rejoicing about Gaddafi's summary execution and illusions of instant functional democracy.
• Israeli oil and gas. This isn't getting a lot of press but is a potential game-changer in the Middle East. Erdrogan in Turkey rattling his Muslim credentials at Israel and the loss of Mubarak (and associated stability) in Egypt weakens two of the underpinnings of Israeli security. Obama and the current American foreign policy regime weakens the biggest one, but not terminally. This gives Israel some breathing room to work with Cyprus to develop their off-shore as well as on-shore oil shale deposits. Turkey is making hostile moves toward the former, so a skirmish is not out of the question.
• The Tsunami in Japan and associated nuclear mess at Fukushima. The loss of life and property was massive, a huge glot of debris is working its' way across the Pacific even as I write this. The repercussions for the already struggling nuclear power industry have been serious, with Germany pledging to get rid of it. Of course they don't say with what it'll be replaced, but it's easy to say things like this to look like you're doing things.
• "Occupy" *.* I'll be interested to see in the spring if this makes any sort of a comeback, but it was formless to begin with and rapidly degenerated. City governments were caught off guard the first time, but once the the camps started to get out out of hand they were rolled up across the continent in pretty quick order. You want change, form political parties with a clear agenda. Otherwise it's perilously close to insurrection and/or anarchy.
• Keystone pipeline. The PM isn't bluffing when he says we'll sell our oil to China if the US doesn't want it, but there's no infrastructure either way so watch and shoot.
• Euro crisis. It strains credulity that the default of Greece can shake the foundations of world (Western) economy, but after the last few years said economy is obviously all a particularly persistent illusion (apologies to the late A. Einstein). the UK might finally cast off the EU out of all of this, but deals are still being done and regulatory empires built, so nothing is really settled.
• Lastly (for now) the changing of the guard in North Korea. Much like Syria right now, I don't imagine that the latest Kim will be calling the shots in the DPRK against whatever vested interests are already there, but North Korea is "too big to fail". The Chinese don't want the humanitarian disaster on their doorstep and the ROK has lost interest in absorbing their northern cousins, so the big question is: Bang or Whimper?

There was a whole lot more, but most of those were big news this year, and more to the point things that I've commented on here. I'm going to be very busy after New Years so this can be considered a "greatest hits" before things go into maintenance mode. I thank all the non-spambots for dropping by (assuming there are some real people) and you never know when I'll be back.

Whatever happens, we have got The Stealthy Drone and they; oh wait....

The Associated Press

Date: Saturday Dec. 10, 2011 11:22 AM ET

WASHINGTON — The loss to Iran of the CIA's surveillance drone bristling with advanced spy technology is more than a propaganda coup and intelligence windfall for the Tehran government. The plane's capture has peeled back another layer of secrecy from expanding U.S. operations against Iran's nuclear and military programs.

...

Iran aired TV footage Thursday of what current and former U.S. officials confirm is the missing Sentinel. The robotic aircraft suffered what appeared to be only minimal damage.

Iran protested Friday to the United Nations about what it described as "provocative and covert operations" by the U.S. The Tehran government called the flight by the drone a "blatant and unprovoked air violation" that was "tantamount to an act of hostility."

Flying any sort of military and/or surveillance aircraft in sovereign airspace is not merely "tantamount" but a de jure hostile act. This means only that I concur that this was a military action against Iran, NOT that I have a problem with the concept. Only the execution in this particular case.

I have read that Obama (Commander in Chief after all) was presented with options to destroy (easiest) or recapture the drone. He did nothing, and the US will suffer for it as its enemies get physical access to their best drone tech. The blog title is my take on this from Hilaire Belloc:

The Modern Traveller

Blood thought he knew the native mind;
He said you must be firm, but kind.
A mutiny resulted.
I shall never forget the way
That Blood stood upon this awful day
Preserved us all from death.
He stood upon a little mound
Cast his lethargic eyes around,
And said beneath his breath:
'Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not.'

So the much vaunted F-22 is grounded more often than not due to oxygen problems, the F-35 is vastly over budget and over time, and now this. America is rapidly losing any advantage over potential competitors, and if Iran did in fact hack the drone (unverified but likely considering it didn't crash) the lynchpin of American surveillance and small conflict strategy is seriously compromised.

It has been a concern in some quarters for some time (it's occurred to me also) that the other side can have drones as well, AND anything which is remote controlled can be jammed or hacked. Appearances are at the moment on the side of the Iranian account, so this would be a efficient payback for some of the lethal shenanigans which have been played on Iran of late.

I'd like this more one-sided (to "our" side) but assuming that your enemies are stupid and incompetent is always a bad idea. The proof of that is sitting in "an undisclosed location" in Iran right now, and nothing short of an outright act of war can now prevent all of the highest bidders (China foremost) from getting their mitts on it. Nice going Obama.

They could make a lot of glass with all that sand...

America has always feared that a nuclear Iran would lead to a Middle Eastern arms race. Speaking at a regional security forum in Riyadh earlier this week, Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki Al-Faisal (former ambassador to the US and intelligence chief) stepped up the pressure. The NYT reports:

Prince Turki said at the forum on Monday that an Iranian quest for nuclear weapons and Israel’s presumed nuclear arsenal might force Saudi Arabia to follow suit…
“It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of these weapons,” Prince Turki was quoted as saying.

In case anyone had any lingering doubts about the characteristics of America's fade from the World Policeman role, this will give an indication. It is however the logical result of previous and current US and international policy toward hard-case regimes around the world.

North Korea figured this out a long time ago, and the mere suspicion that they might have (lot of qualifiers here) functional nukes will keep the merely pushy or adventurous away from military action. Libya cut a deal a few years back and relinquished "all" their WMD, particularly the nuclear aspects. We can see how well that worked for Qaddafi, and for Saddam Hussein before him, and the lesson to Iran was clear: proliferate or die.

Iran's nuclear program has taken some knocks of late, but nothing short of a massive and carefully targeted air attack and/or a suicidal Special Forces attack on the tunnel complexes that hide it will stop it in the medium term. In the long run anything can be rebuilt, but it's pointless to worry about that with the current problems we face.

I didn't predict the Saudis wanting nukes, but it didn't surprise me when I read it. The Saudis want them for standard deterrence purposes, so they don't fall into my "despot fail safe" pattern above. The US still has their back, but that too could change and the Saudis play the Monarchical long game. If things go totally off the rails and we see a Mid East nuclear arms race, I REALLY can't predict where that will go. Not that I can usually predict anything in particular; if I could do that I'd be getting paid for this.

Pakistan is falling apart, and you can be sure the Americans won't get all of their nukes when the centre completely fails to hold. There are a number of places with money who could buy some through existing contacts, and I would be shocked if feelers were not already extended.

It will never happen, but an ideal stop-gap deterrence for the Saudis already exists: Israel. It would be domestic politics suicide for the House of Saud, but I'm sure the Israelis could (for significant financial inducement) "rent" an extension of their nuclear umbrella against a common foe. Israel is already strategic depth for the Saudis whether it's intended or not, regardless of what the Americans may guarantee the Saudis in the future.

Here's my AotF strategic calculus to get that result. Iran's government and a good slice of the population hates Israel, (for no good historical reason, but no matter) and Israel takes this seriously. I am assuming a great deal with this next bit, but if Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, I can't see Israel standing idly by. This would likely take the form of opportunistic attacks on Iranian targets through Saudi airspace. The reason this might happen is that Saudi is the closest thing Israel has to an ally in the region since Turkey flaked out. There is some affinity with the Kurds, but that isn't going to be a strategic asset to Israel in the near future.

Conversely, if Iran nukes Israel the Saudis will have lost a de facto ally and it will be completely up to the (now) unpredictable Americans to save Saudi bacon from Iran. This is the strategic depth I was taking about; the advantage to the Saudis in keeping Israel around is that they have a lot of skin in the game, whereas the Americans could decide they don't care what happens between Iran and Saudi.

Even two years ago it would be unthinkable that the Americans would abandon the Saudis, but perceived National Interest can change quickly. For the time being, anyone attacking Israel can count on the Americans lining up against them, but that isn't eternal either. Egypt is getting some sort of Islamist government as I write this, so Israel is now the only proxy the US has in the area.

Pulling back to the Mediterranean, yes the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is suddenly not to be relied upon, at the same time that Turkey is rattling its destroyers around the joint Cyprus/Israel gas projects in the eastern Med. Syria is destabilizing further by the day, and Hezbollah is making a play at a coup (again) in Lebanon. The latter is unlikely to succeed as Hezbollah's hostage "allies" in the country are starting to see daylight between Syria and Hezbollah and are getting brave now that they might have a chance.

Holy flashpoints Batman! I know I've left some things out, and I'm sure I'm missing some other stuff that going on, so it's at least this potentially messy. I don't know whether adding more nuclear weapons to the mix will make things more stable or less, but the best case is some sort of multi-sided Mid East Cold War. That certainly sounds like fun, but whatever I can imagine is a small slice of the possibilities the unpredictability of human interaction provides us with. As always, watch and shoot.

The end? Nothing ever ends...

With the writing on the wall, you'll hear a lot more of this:

Karzai said: "Afghanistan will certainly need help for another 10 years, until around 2024. We will need training for our own troops. We will need equipment for the army and police and help to set up state institutions."
Referring to the Taliban regime, he added: "If we lose this fight, we are threatened with a return to a situation like that before Sept. 11, 2001."

Afghanistan is a sinkhole for all the blood and treasure anyone could sink into it, and this shilling for baksheesh has set the gears in my head into motion. It's napkin math time ladies and gents, lets see what my Frontier Arithmetic comes up with; specifically the cost of what brought us into that tar pit, versus what it's cost since.

Wikipedia has the total fatalities "in and around Afghanistan" for coalition countries at about 2800 (their figures as of 30 Nov 2011). This sounds about right to me so I'll work with it. Likewise, the amount that the USA has spent on Afghanistan to date will be impossible to determine exactly, but http://costofwar.com/en/ has it as $464Bn at the time of writing. I won't bother with what Canada has spent, but I'm sure we had better things to do with the money, even if it has been a big boost the the Canadian Army and (lesser extent) Air Force.

Now, the cost of the 9/11 attack that triggered it all is almost equally fraught. Here is one account which has it in the neighborhood of $2T. A lot of that is stock market "loss" but looking at property losses alone it's over $100B. Canada of course was physically unscathed in the 9/11 attack, but we've still spent billions in and because of Afghanistan. This is an amount that Canada can easily absorb, the same can not be said for US expenditures.

The happily departed OBL stated Al Queda's plan as one of "Bleed to Bankruptcy" and it was more successful than it should have been. Based on the above the balance sheet for nation building in Afghanistan (as opposed to Special Forces and air support) isn't looking good. For the umpteenth time, it's been diminishing returns since 2002, and there will be little to show that we accomplished anything. Bad geopolitical investment.

I can't say I've given up predicting the course of things over there, but our side has lost a lot (modern terms) of troops and poured a lot of money down the Central Asian drain. I don't think that the Taliban will be as successful as last time, but the hard-won progress in the Afghan provinces has been very temporary and as soon as we leave every idiot gang with guns will move in all over the south and east.

If nothing else, remember that the USSR did the same things we did; propped up a government, built stuff, etc., with the difference that they bombed "civilians" ON PURPOSE when they felt it necessary and never apologized. Whatever temporary cooperation we've bought over there will dry up as soon as our money does and the troops aren't there to keep the Talibs down. Should look great in the history books; I wonder who'll try the place next? China perhaps?